1

The historical exclusion of the Scots language within Scottish institutional contexts

(Jones 1995: 1-21) is largely due, in Bourdieuian terms, to the lack of ‘social’ and

‘cultural capital’ certain codes of the language have held in much of Scottish society.

The devaluation of the Scots language has been exacerbated in particular by its

marginalisation within the Scottish education system. During the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries, although learning Latin held prestige, Scots was generally the

teaching medium in most Scottish classrooms (Williamson 1982a: 54-77). However,

the elocution movement during the latter half of the eighteenth century and the

Education (Scotland) Act of 1872 encouraged and eventually required that every child

should be educated in English (Bailey 1987: 131-142). Scots became regarded as a

‘lazy’, parochial dialect of English and Scottish aspirations to reproduce the linguistic

norms of ‘polite’ London helped to suppress the language further (Jones 1995: 2).

What arose during this period in Scotland was not only a tightening of

linguistic belts in the English language but also an attempt to create ‘language death’

in Scots. Scots is a language in its own right, having a separate linguistic history to

that of English (McClure 2009: 13-4). Studies by Macaulay (1991) and Macafee

(1994a) suggest that Scots is also a complicated language, not easily studied by means

of a Labovian method for example; the language presents too many individual

idiosyncrasies and variables to neatly align to such a specific approach (Macafee in

Jones 1997: 514). The Scottish tongue however, despite being complex and distinct

from English, was usurped by a process of ‘Anglicisation’, which also resulted in

marginalising elements of Scottish identity (Jones 1995: 1-21). Eventually these

events led to the Scottish education system rejecting what largely became recognised

as a working-class Scots tongue (Bailey 1987: 131-42).

The Council of Europe: European Charter for Regional or Minority

Languages, recognised Scots as a minority language in 2000 and the UK Government

ratified Scots as such in 2001 under Part II of the Charter. As Millar (2006: 63-86)

states, however, the requirements for Part II of the charter allows for much

governmental interpretation of Scots language provision. As such ‘the implementation

Lowing K (2017) The Scots language and its cultural and social capital in Scottish schools: a case study of Scots in Scottish secondary classrooms. Scottish Language, 36. https://asls.arts.gla.ac.uk/ScotLang.html

The Scots Language and its cultural and social capital in Scottish schools: a case

study of Scots in Scottish secondary classrooms

Karen Lowing

1. Introduction

2

of language policy on Scots at all levels of government … has been half-hearted, ill

thought-out and buried in a swathe of other ‘cultural’ issues’ (2006: 63).

Scots remains a misunderstood and problematic language in Scotland. The

Curriculum for Excellence supports the incorporation of Scots within Scottish

classrooms and more recently Scots Co-ordinators have been appointed through

‘Education Scotland’ to help implement the language in schools, although this

initiative has now been scaled back. This said, my own observational data revealed

that some representatives in schools and governmental bodies struggled to accept

Scots as a living language in its various forms. In particular, I met with several

ambassadors for the Scots language in schools who struggled with the concept that

Scots speakers could potentially be bilingual in Scots and English. Despite recent

moves to encourage Scots in Scottish classrooms, the language does not yet appear to

sit securely within the Scottish education system.

Much has been discussed in the field of Scots language regarding the

exclusion of Scots in schools. Williamson (1982a + b: 54-77 + 52-87) notes that

although Scots, or Inglis, in medieval Scotland was taught in a range of different

schools normally run by the Church, scholarship beyond the basic was usually taught

in Latin, Latin being, ‘the academic lingua franca of Europe’ (1982a: 55). However,

Scots was used in some 16th

century scholarly work designed for a more general

readership and this helped to raise its status (1982a: 56).

Williamson’s (1982a + b: 54-77 + 52-87) work on ‘Lowland Scots in

Education’ is particularly fascinating and relevant to my own research. I am

predominantly interested, however, in the ‘othering’ of Scots by drawing direct

associations between Scots and interlocutor socioeconomic status. I also refer to

socio-cultural theory to explain such links between socioeconomic status and Scots.

From a Bordieuan perspective, I explore results from case studies I began in two

Scottish secondary schools during 2010. Therein I investigate several reasons for the

marginalisation of the Scots language and its speakers in the Scottish classroom, by

considering associations between Scots, socioeconomic status and ‘capital’. I also

make recommendations for educationalists to address barriers to implementing the

use of Scots in the Scottish classroom, in order to include, support and encourage

Scots-speaking children in Scottish schools.

3

2. The ‘Capital’ of Scots

Bourdieu states that our ‘habitus’ is our, ‘range of complex and intelligent

behavioural dispositions, moral sentiments, acquired competences and forms of

practical understanding and reasoning’ (Crossley 2005: 104). It is that which is tacitly

learned and moulded within us from birth by our society and context. ‘Hexis’,

suggests Bourdieu, can be understood as our ‘habitus’ represented through our bodies

(Jenkins 1992: 75). Indeed, in Bordieuan terms our bodies are ‘mnemonic devices’

(1992: 75), which demonstrate our ‘cultural capital’. ‘Cultural capital’ can exist in the

‘embodied state’ but it can also be represented through cultural objects such as

paintings or texts deriving from art and literature or, for example, in the form of

endorsements from institutions such as the education system (Bourdieu 1986: 241-

258).

‘Social capital’, Bourdieu suggests, is demonstrated through the membership

of ‘capitalised’ networks. Membership provides ‘collective capital’, support and

recognition; membership is also normally reliant on the cultural, monetary or

figurative ‘capital’ of the individual. The overt or tacit creation of ‘social capital’

institutionalises social groups such as the family, communities, religious faiths,

nations etc.. Institutions can offer social, cultural and / or economic wealth to

members (Bourdieu 1986: 241-258).

Within the context of Scotland, the manner in which ‘social’ and ‘cultural

capital’ can be applied to the Scots language is complex. The current standing of

Scots derives from an elaborate sequence of events arising from the seventh century

onwards. Employing the Scots language and particular codes of Scots therein,

whether this is a conscious or tacit decision by an individual, is influenced by their

‘habitus’ and is an element of their individual ‘hexis’. However, the level of ‘cultural’

and ‘social capital’ a Scots interlocutor linguistically demonstrates, can also be very

much dependent on their context and the particular code(s) of Scots they employ.

3. A brief history of ‘capitalised’ Scots

In order to appreciate Scots’ lack of ‘capital’, it is firstly important to understand its

place in history. Scots has enjoyed a successful ‘culturally capitalised’ (see Bourdieu

1986: 241-58) literary career that can be traced back to Dumfriesshire in the seventh

century with the poem The Dream of the Rood, carved on the Ruthwell Cross

4

(McClure 2009: 3). Its origins derive from Northern English, Englisc or Inglis, a

Germanic language employed by Anglian invaders from a place we now know as

Schleswig in northern Germany (Moody 2007: xvi). Although not easily mapped,

during the sixth century the Anglian and then Norse language of subsequent invaders,

inched north from Northumbria to as far as the Moray Firth during the seventh

century. Owing to ongoing territorial disputes between Scotland and England, no

defined border until the Treaty of York in 1237 and, most importantly, the

importation of settlers from England as part of the foundation of the new burghs,

defended markets which developed into towns, Inglis eventually replaced Gaelic in

most of Lowland Scotland by the thirteenth century (2007: xvi).

The rise of Inglis as a national language owes much to the relative remoteness

of Scotland and its eventual border to England (Moody 2007: xviii). The growing use

of Inglis in Scottish court, religion and legal matters helped to secure its standing in

the Lowlands. In the developing Kingdom of Scotland, Scots as the language of

poetry in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with Barbour’s Bruce and Blin

Harry’s Wallace, subsequently obtained literary merit in Europe. Later in the fifteenth

century the writer, Gavin Douglas named the language Scottis (Scots), fashioning it as

a distinct language from Inglis (McClure 2009: 7).

The Scots Language reached its peak of prestige, of ‘cultural capital’, in the

sixteenth century. Despite the Reformation and the use of the Geneva Bible, an

English translation of the text in Scottish churches, the Scots language was still in use

(McClure 2009: 11). In 1559 the Scottish Court instructed Nudrye’s Scottish

textbooks to be employed in Scottish schools, in order to actively encourage children

to ‘Read and Write the Scottis Tongue’. This trend for Scots to be regarded as a

relatively ‘capitalised’ language continued into the seventeenth century (Bailey 1987:

132).

However, despite Scots’ relative success, a ‘‘high’ Scots prose’ (Williamson

1982a: 57) did not emerge early enough to challenge English as the developing

language of ‘capital’ in Scotland (1982a: 57). The gradual demise of Scots as the

language of Court and country was largely ensured with James IV’s use of the

printing press to publicise Scottish politics and history, where English was the

language of print rather than Scots. Following this, James VI’s relocation to London

in 1603 to become James I and the Union of Parliaments in 1707, ensured the decline

of Scots and the ascent of English as the ‘capitalised’ language of the establishment

5

(McClure 2009: 11-12). Nevertheless, beyond officialdom, Scots remained the

socially ‘capitalised’ spoken word across a broad stratum of society in Lowland

Scotland (Aitken 1979: 90)

The status of Scots in the eighteenth century further explains its fall from grace. To

create ‘social’ and ‘cultural capital’ with their counterparts in London, where valuable

networks (‘social capital’) and appropriate cultural references (‘cultural capital’)

could be adhered to and expressed, Edinburgh society eagerly wished to shed the

‘provincial’ image speaking ‘Scotticisms’ or Scots provided (Jones 1995: 1-21). A

growing English suspicion of the Scottish, due to reasons including the Bute

Controversy in 1762, also encouraged the marginalisation of the Scots language

thereafter (Jones 1995: 1-21).

Scots experienced a literary renaissance in the early twentieth century with

writers such as MacDiarmid and Lewis Grassic Gibbon. MacDiarmid’s A Drunk Man

Looks at a Thistle (1926) was written in ‘Lallans’, a ‘synthetic Scots’, drawn from

various Scots codes and varieties dialects; it did much to raise the status and ‘cultural

capital’ of the Scots language. This said the use of some Scots language in twentieth

and twenty-first century Scottish literature could also be considered as lacking in

‘cultural capital’. Welsh’s Trainspotting is a prime example of the lack of ‘cultural

capital’ found in some more modern Scots speaking literary characters’; the famous

Renton, in a drug induced stupor, states: ‘Thir must be less tae life than this’ (2013:

249).

In the Scottish media, Scots and its cultural value is also represented in a

contradictory manner. For example, the language of ‘The Newsreader’ compared to

that of the ‘NEDs’,1 in the famous Scottish sitcom ‘Chewin the Fat’, juxtaposes

apparently reputable and unsavoury or ‘capitalised’ and ‘un-capitalised’ Scots codes.

Here we can begin to appreciate the many different forms of Scots that exist in

Scotland. Some codes of Scots, such as Older literary Scots, Scottish Standard

English, or even loan words or phrases from ‘Older Scots’, are normally ‘culturally

capitalised’. Other forms of Scots, such as a type of Glaswegian used by the NEDs,

are often marginalised, considered parochial, and therefore, ‘un-capitalised’.

1 NEDs, considered by some to derive from the phrase non-educated delinquents, is a term used to refer to the ‘underclass’ in

Scotland, those so stricken by poverty, hardship and brutality that they are ‘othered’ by society. NEDs are depicted in Peter

Mullan’s film of the same name and caricatured in the Scottish comedy ‘Chewin the Fat’.

6

Nevertheless, it is possible for Scots speakers who do not adopt Scottish

Standard English for example, to have ‘cultural capital’, where their code offers a

linguistic manifestation (‘hexis’) of some of the valued cultural practices and tenets

common to their own contexts and specifically their own socio-economic group. We

would normally consider ‘cultural capital’ to derive from ‘high art’, ‘high culture’,

esteemed literary texts and even from the endorsements of officiated institutions.

Indeed, cultural pieces and practices that are sanctioned by the middle or upper

classes and formal institutions such as the education system or church, normally

demonstrate ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu 1986: 241-58). Therefore, patrons and

advocates of ‘high culture’ might regard demonstrations of ‘cultural capital’ amongst

less privileged socioeconomic groups as ‘low culture’ and therefore ‘un-capitalised’.

Although the use of working-class Scots is therefore often ridiculed in

Scotland within popular or ‘low cultural’ televised comedy programmes such as ‘Rab

C. Nesbitt’, Kevin Bridges, a well-known Scottish comedian, unusually ‘capitalises’

his use of Glaswegian to achieve ‘cultural capital’ within his seemingly ‘lower

cultural’ home context of working-class Glasgow.

In his sketch ‘The Story Continues’2, Bridges implies that his working-class

Glaswegian is a more sincere language than that used by some Scottish middle-class

students that he witnesses in the west-end of Glasgow. He suggests that the latter

purportedly speak in a contrived code. He provides working-class Glaswegian with

‘cultural capital’, value and integrity in this context, as he inverts the normal practice

of mocking working-class Glaswegian through comedy in Scotland, by inviting his

audience to deride instead a normally ‘capitalised’ middle-class form of Scots used by

the students he refers to. He therefore inverts the recognised social strata of Scots use

in Glasgow. However, Bridges’ diatribe regarding Scots use is rather deterministic;

there are many different codes of Scots, as there are many different Scots

interlocutors and cultural contexts in Scotland. It is important to recognise that all

codes of Scots are valuable and have the potential to exhibit ‘cultural capital’.

Shoba (2010: 229-35) explains that many different forms of Scots are still

very much alive today. Scots spoken across modern Scotland demonstrates an

etymology, syntax and lexis, which differs distinctly from English and is spoken in

2 See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ouk_XEU-mw for Kevin Bridges’ ‘The Story Continues’ sketch.

7

varied forms, largely by the working classes of Scotland, in urban and rural areas.3

The Scots that is generally acceptable in schools and wider middle class society

however is Scottish Standard English and/or a literary Scots of Burns and the Older

Scots period (2010: 229-35). This Scots is peppered with Scottish phonological

idiosyncrasies and is often to be heard in the language of Scottish Standard English,

English with a Scottish accent and with occasional Traditional Written Scots’ lexis.

However, as said the Scots of today’s Scottish working classes for example, is still

often perceived as ‘bad English’ or simply ‘not Scots’, even among some

educationalists that are working to promote Scots in schools. This is, as we know, in

direct contrast to recent official recognition of Scots as a living language (Matheson

and Matheson 2000: 211-21).

Traditional Written Scots is positioned within a notion of invented romantic

‘tartanry’ and alludes to a more palatable Scottish identity; it is acceptably and

carefully employed in Scottish schools during Burn’s night celebrations or whilst

studying Scots more broadly as a heritage language (Shoba 2010: 229-35). Indeed,

many Scottish educationalists are still some way off from recognising a much wider

range of Scots, from differing forms of urban to rural Scots, in the Scottish classroom.

As stated, few educationalists I came across in my own research accepted that

countless Scottish children are bilingual in both the Scots of their families and

communities and the Scottish Standard English required in school.

Today’s practice of re-appropriating Scots as a language of heritage, to

maintain an ‘acceptable’ demonstration of Scottish identity, a suitable identity linked

with ‘cultural’ and ‘social capital’, has only been possible through the adoption of

‘culturally capitalised’ Scots language and literature, often drawn from the Traditional

Literary Scots’ tradition. However, ‘cultural’ and ‘social capital’ (Bourdieu 1986:

241-58) can be applied to both Older Scots and the everyday Scots spoken in Scottish

communities today. A pilot study I carried out in 2009 in South Lanarkshire, before

my main project began in 2010, produced results that suggested it was common

amongst participants to code-switch between Glaswegian Scots, Scottish Standard

English and even Older Scots, when in the home/street or church/school respectively.

Such ‘code-switching’ occurred in order to achieve ‘social’ and ‘cultural capital’ in

particular informal and formal group settings. For example, Glaswegian Scots

3 See www.ayecan.com for examples of different such codes.

8

achieved ‘social capital’ in the street but engaging with Scottish Standard English or

elements of Older Scots in school helped the interlocutor to achieve ‘cultural capital’.

These pilot study participants, retired working-class Glaswegians, felt the need

to code-switch between Glaswegian within informal settings, such as the home, to

Older Scots and/or Scottish Standard English in formal settings, such as the church or

school, due to peer expectation and institutional pressure. Glaswegian Scots within

religious or educational institutions, at least in South West Scotland, is often felt to be

inappropriate; the participants were told to ‘speak properly’ in these contexts and as

one participant stated, ‘properly meant the Queen’s English’. From these pilot study

results, the requirement for said interlocutors to adapt and belie their working-class

roots, via their code of speech, was irrefutable. Indeed, even if Labov’s (1966) work

is not a completely suitable framework to employ when examining Scots, Labovian4

associations are often drawn between the socio-economic status of Scots speakers and

the code of Scots they employ (Shoba 2010: 229-35).

Similarly, the employment of say, Glaswegian and Scottish Standard English

can achieve ‘social capital’ in their respective socio-economic networks, as each often

allows ease of access to the various social groups they are aligned with. As with

results from Labov (1966) and Trudgill’s (1974) studies, it was clear from my pilot

participant responses that their chosen codes of Scots were linked to their socio-

economic group or even their socio-economic aspirations. These linguistic

demonstrations of ‘hexis’ were important to participants in exhibiting their notion of

belonging to said group and the identities that were exhibited therein.

Nonetheless positioning particular forms of the Scots language, often

working-class Scots, and its speakers as the Other has aided the formation of a

Scottish ‘schizoglossia’: an insecurity in the use of Scots. Macafee (2000: 1-44)

suggests that Scots-speakers’ are largely ignorant of the existence and workings of

their own tongue. Nevertheless, Scots speakers’ lack of confidence in the employment

of Scots in some formal settings such as school still contrasts with the frequent

employment of Scots in less formal contexts such as the home and street (see Tns-

bmrb 2010b: 1-39).

4 See Labov. 1966 and Trudgill’s, 1974 study for seminal examples of this phenomenon.

9

We can associate the Scots language with community, notions of identity and culture,

the ‘soul’ and ‘mental individuality’ (Westermann, cited in Whitehead 1995: 4).

Despite being at the heart of many Scottish children’s identity, the marginalisation of

Scots in Scottish schools has potentially generated barriers for inclusion and learning

and has compromised Scots speakers’ notions of self-worth, agency and identity. As

such, it is socially just that Scots, and its bilingual speakers, are fully recognised and

included in the Scottish classroom.

4. Methodology

This paper derives results from a case study, begun in 2010, and conducted in two

southwest Scottish secondary schools, where attitudes were sought from staff and

students regarding the place of the Scots language in the Scottish classroom. The

schools were located in communities with similar socio-economic status on average to

Scotland’s communities more widely (national average free school meal uptake in

2010 at 14%)5, with school B being in a slightly less affluent area than school A

(Allan, Hunter-Rowe and Houliston 2010: 1-24).

The purpose of the research was to explore associations that participants made

between the use of the Scots language and its ‘social’ and ‘cultural capital’,

particularly within the context of the Scottish classroom. I wished to study therein

how ‘capital’ beyond the economic was constructed and maintained through the use

of the Scots language (see Bourdieu 1986: 241-258). I also wanted to consider, under

the banner of social justice, the effects of ‘othering’ Scots interlocutors, and in

particular children, in the Scottish classroom. As a result, I aimed to make

recommendations for the implementation of Scots in the classroom to support policy

and practice therein.

In the main study I adopted a mixed method approach, employing semi-

structured interviews and questionnaires. The data is considered to be ‘concept-

dependent’ (Sayer 1997: 453-487), created by participants and thus privy to de or re-

construction by both the social agency of the participant and myself, the researcher

(1997: 453-487). In the following sections I analyse, from a Bordieuan perspective,

5 See http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/schmeals2010

10

data arising from interviews with staff focus groups. I induce and interpret meaning

from what I regard as my participants’ constructed perspectives regarding the Scots

language. Participants produce responses through their contexts, responses which are

then open to epistemologically reflexive deconstruction.

In order to enrich results further and as can be seen throughout this paper, I

also refer to qualitative data I collected from both my pilot study participants and

pupil participants located in school A and B. Immediately below I present a content

analysis of the staff focus group interviews conducted in schools A and B.

Participants are indicated by their gender and by using ‘a’ or ‘b’ to designate their

school; staff is also numbered to further differentiate responses. The content analysis

offers a quantified overview of the main emerging data ‘categories’. Repetition of

‘meaning units’ in the data were counted, coded, condensed and grouped to create

‘categories’ (see Graneheim and Lundman 2004: 105-12). The ‘categories’ helped to

inform emerging themes from the data. I subsequently provide a thematic analysis of

the data by identifying repeated themes therein (see Ryan and Bernard 2003: 85-109).

By employing different analytical approaches, I demonstrate the broad range of issues

raised by staff.

5. Results and Analysis

Staff focus groups in both schools were asked their opinions on the standing of Scots,

its place in the Scottish curriculum and what implications they thought there would be

for students and practitioners in incorporating Scots lessons into classrooms. Figure 1

illustrates the main ‘categories’ that emerged from the content analysis of this data set:

11

Fig. 1. Content analysis of staff focus group semi-structured interview responses,

Schools A and B

I consider those content analysis categories that received the highest scores for

‘meaning units’ (indicated numerically in Fig. 1) by providing initial and then a more

developed thematic analysis of staff responses or said ‘meaning units’ as below. In

Fig. 1. the top four categories that emerged were: ‘Issues and conflicts surrounding

teachers/English teachers implementing Scots in L1, Standard English speaking

classrooms’, ‘Status of Scots’, ‘Scots lexis and syntax’ and ‘Defining language’.

Category: Issues and conflicts surrounding implementing Scots in L1, Standard

English speaking classrooms

This category scored 23 meaning units, that is to say, staff commented 23 times on

issues that led to create this category. Staff participants remarked a great deal on the

problems they envisaged if introducing Scots to students in their classrooms. They did

Defining Language, 12 Standardising Scots, 8

Status of Scots, 18

Scots Lexis and Syntax, 12

Descriptive Nuances of Scots, 3

Etymological Aspects of Scots, 7

Lexical, Syntactical and Codal Aspects of Scots, 4

Variants of L1, 2

Issues Surrounding a Country's L1, 3

Scots in the New Curriculum for Excellence, 5

Issues and Conflicts

Surrounding Teachers /

English Teachers

Implementing Scots in L1 Standard English

Speaking Classrooms, 23

Impact on Students having Scots

Lessons, 2

Issues Surrounding Standard English in

the Classroom, 9

Issues Surrounding Scots in the English

Classroom, 3

Scots Speakers

and Usage, 2

Miscellaneous Comments, 7

Content analysis of staff focus group semi-structured interview responses (categories), Schools A and B

12

not indicate, or appear to recognise particularly, the different forms of Scots they were

discussing.

Examples of participant ‘meaning units’ for this category include:

a lot of people, sort of, in education are uncomfortable with

giving the language that status – that its okay to use it in the

formal essay (male 3a)

But it’s also very important that pupils know about appropriacy

(female 3b)

Staff participants were ‘uncomfortable’ in providing Scots with ‘status’ similar to that

of Standard English, the latter of which was normally taught in class. As discussed,

Scots is generally not considered to possess ‘cultural capital’ (see Tns-bmrb 2010: 1-

39) or ‘status’, unlike Traditional Literary Scots or Scottish Standard English for

example, within educational contexts (Shoba 2010: 229-35). Therefore we can reason

from participant responses that they were referring to an ‘uncapitalised’ form of Scots’

here. Hence, it is of little surprise that some of the staff was concerned with the

‘appropriacy’ of this type of Scots in schools. These participants evidently did not

consider this form of Scots, the Scots of the playground for example, as a prestige

code, a language of ‘value’, and therefore a fitting code for the classroom. Indeed, as I

discuss below, some participants made a tacit link between these Scots speakers and

said speakers’ socio-economic status.

Other ‘meaning units’ for this category included:

people would have to learn English … Standard English as a

foreign language (male 2a)

but certainly we would have to re-educate ourselves partly (male

2a)

Staff thought Scots might be implemented in schools as an L1, the students’ first

language; they believed they may have to teach Standard English ‘as a foreign

language’. This again suggests a lack of understanding in staff regarding what form of

Scots they were referring to. One member of staff acknowledged, ‘it’s alive in the

playground, it’s alive in the classroom’ (female 2a), therefore emphasizing that this

Scots is already most likely the L1 of many Scottish children and that these students

were almost certainly bilingual in ‘playground’ Scots and Scottish Standard English.

However, some staff did not concede to this; their responses suggested that they

13

considered Scots to be an archaic version of the Scots spoken today and that they, and

most likely the children, would need to be ‘re-educate[d]’ in the former.

Subsequent ‘meaning units’ for the category: ‘issues and conflicts’ comprised:

perhaps only [teaching Scots] with those who are more able to

cope with a variety of languages (male 1a)

It’s often who we would see as less able are actually able to .. we

saw it today when we did a [Scots] translation exercise and one of

the less able in the class got it straight off (male 3a)

Staff differed in their opinions of which children would benefit from Scots. Some

thought ‘more able’ children would ‘cope’ with Scots, despite female 2a recognising

that Scots was ‘alive in the playground’. Other staff believed the ‘less able’ would

excel in the code.

Again staff seemed unclear as to what Scots actually was and what type of Scots

they were referring to. Ironically many of the actual participants spoke differing forms

of Scots. Their need to be ‘re-educate[d]’ and their belief that only the ‘more able’

were equipped to understand it, suggested that some staff at least were referring to

Older Scots. Other staff were obviously discussing the Scots spoken today in their

responses; they recognised Scots in the playground, and regarded this as a language

easily accessible to ‘less able’ children.

From my own observations when working in school A and B, it was often the

‘less’ apparently academic and engaged children who spoke a form of everyday Scots

as their L1 and excelled in the Scots lesson I taught as part of my research. Indeed I

noticed that focused and noticeably academic children, who often spoke a form of

Scottish Standard English as their L1, normally struggled with the Scots work I set

classes. What was also compelling from the data was firstly a subtle and tacit

perception, application of value or ‘capital’ and then categorisation amongst staff

participants regarding the different types of Scots discussed; everyday or playground

Scots, the Scots of home and community, made staff ‘uncomfortable’, whereas Older

and / or literary Scots was for the ‘more able’. Even more interesting was the indirect

practice amongst many participants of not only affixing ‘capital’ to said types of Scots

but also by proxy to the children according to the variety of Scots they spoke; for

example, the ‘less able’ understood the less ‘capitalised’ everyday Scots.

14

In school A in particular male 3a referred to some students as ‘less able’. A

certain student in his class, a boy of around 12 years of age, was disruptive and

challenging at the beginning of the lesson. His clothes were shabby and he seemed

unkempt. The teacher ‘warned’ me about this boy and suggested he was not academic.

The boy’s ‘hexis’, his ‘habitus’ represented through his outward appearance and

behaviour (Jenkins 1992: p75), suggested that he was somewhat neglected, not

engaged and rejecting of authority. Several other students in his class were of similar

appearance and behaviour. The ‘hexis’ of these children, the stereotype they presented,

suggested that they originated from lower socio-economic contexts.

This boy spoke a form of Scots common to his community and was adept at

translating a passage of a similar form of Scots into Standard English. Male 3a later

stated, ‘It’s often who we would see as less able are actually able to’, when referring to

this class’ success in the Scots lesson. The key here is in the word ‘see’. This boy was

‘seen’ as disadvantaged, as ‘less able’; Scots had never been taught to this class before

but he was not ‘less able’ in Scots.

Many of the children I worked with in both school A and B who demonstrated a

similar ‘hexis’ to the boy I mention above, were adept at working in their Scots tongue.

Yet these children were largely perceived as being ‘less able’ and behaviourally

challenging. Jones (1995) discusses how the eighteenth century elocution movement in

Edinburgh considered Scots to be, ‘a barbaric relic of a backward society’ (1);

subsequently this mind-set helped to eradicate ‘Scotticisms’ from the Scottish

education system (Bailey 1987: 131-42). It is of little surprise then that this legacy

remains, as some teachers in the focus groups still questioned the ‘appropriacy’ of

‘modern Scots’ in Scottish classrooms and did not recognise the value of the code or

the linguistic expertise of its interlocutors. It is also not unexpected that many

participants presumed that the Scots to be implemented in the classroom would be

Traditional Literary Scots, an acceptable code of Scots within Scottish education

(Shoba 2010: 229-35).

Scottish educationalists then, must be cautious and candid when examining how

they categorise and affix ‘capital’ to different types of Scots in the classroom, and by

proxy their interlocutors. Attributing value, and often less value or ‘capital’, to

differing forms of Scots was generally a tacit phenomenon I witnessed when collecting

data for the overall project, and is undoubtedly an enduring and embedded practice in

Scotland more widely. However, categorising and ‘othering’ Scots speaking children

15

in the Scottish classroom, even if unconscious, is an act of exclusion and contrary to

the good practice and modelling of positive citizenship routinely demonstrated in

Scotland’s schools today. Therefore, although Scottish teachers will continue to benefit

from Scots language resources and professional development and learning in Scots,

such support must be scrutinized for the underlying value or ‘capital’ attributed

inherently therein.

Categories: ‘Status of Scots’, ‘Scots lexis and syntax’ and ‘defining language’

From the content analysis of staff focus groups (Fig. 1), it also became unsurprisingly

clear that staff was specifically concerned with the ‘status of Scots’. These concerns

were raised within the meaning units for category: ‘issues and conflicts’ discussed

above, however, ample ‘meaning units’ (18) arose on this topic to justify a separate

category. Staff also produced sufficient ‘meaning units’ in equal proportions to allow

the creation of the categories: ‘Scots lexis and syntax’ and ‘defining language’ (12

‘meaning units’ raised for each). I therefore collectively explore the ‘meaning units’

from these three categories, as they interrelate. I provide thematic analysis of the data

as below.

There was disparity amongst staff as to whether Scots words were used to any

extent in the present day.

we are always aware that we’re using specifically Scots words

(male 2a)

here we’ve got just the odd sort of dialect word, like you say

‘Aye’ and ‘You ken’ (female 3b)

Certain staff employed ‘specifically Scots words’, such as ‘aye’ (yes) and ‘ken’

(know), the ‘odd sort of dialect word’, which they presumed to be a dialect of

Standard English. These results are region specific, as there are many differing codes

of Scots employed throughout Scotland, however it was clear when collecting data

that participants did employ Scots in their everyday speech, whether they thought it to

be a dialect of Standard English or not, yet they were unaware of this. They believed

that, although they were ‘aware’ they were ‘using specifically Scots words’, Scots

was only demonstrated in their speech with the ‘odd’ moment of Scots lexis. They did

not recognise the broad range of Scots lexis they employed or the particular syntax of

their speech that belies a Scots speaker. These findings are also echoed in the Tns-

16

bmrb (2010b) study of Scots language, where ‘two thirds (67%)’ of participants

‘agree[d] that their use of Scots is sub-conscious; that they are really not aware of

speaking it’ (p15). Again, I draw comparisons with Macafee’s (2000: p1-44) research,

which highlights Scots speakers’ lack of awareness with regard their own tongue.

Staff were clearly unsure as to what Scots is and the lack of ‘capital’ that Scots

has in the minds of many participants encouraged them to think of Scots as some kind

of patois of Standard English:

Are we talking about a…a distinct separate language, or…? Is it

several variants (Laughter)? Is there a Scots language? (male 2a)

it depends how you define a language (female 3b)

It’s just different accents that we hear at the minute, not the

traditional (male 1b)

True Scots is a bit of Robbie Burns (female 2b)

Participant A from my pilot study explained that, ‘[y]ou selectively use it but in an

unconscious way’. However, male 2a simply did not know what Scots is. He laughed

as he was so unsure about Scots and because the idea of Scots being a language in its

own right, ‘with variants’, was completely absurd to him. We are reminded of how

Scots is represented on Scottish television by such characters as Rab C. Nesbitt, as

being a debased, guttural tongue and certainly not a language of ‘capital’.

Male 2a’s reaction says much regarding how the status of Scots was viewed in

the focus groups. Male 1b and female 2b did adhere to the notion that Scots exists but

only as a ‘heritage’ code, the language of Burns or Older Scots. Similar to male 2a,

they regarded Scots spoken today as simply ‘accents’, not ‘capitalised’ ‘traditional’

Scots and therefore not Scots.

The debasement and eradication of the Scots language from Scottish classrooms

from the eighteenth century onwards, has dislocated the ‘soul’ and ‘mental

individuality’ (Westermann, cited in Whitehead 1995: 4) of the Scots speaker; indeed

as is obvious from the focus group data, their ‘souls’ speak Scots but their minds

speak English. Tns-bmrb results echo this conclusion: 64% of participants did not see

Scots, ‘as a language - it’s more just a way of speaking’ (2010b: 2).

However, female 3b added a crucial point: ‘how [do] you define a language’?

This highlights the need for a clear definition of Scots. It was extremely challenging

for participants to regard Scots as a language when no official endorsed canon exists;

17

it was also very difficult for participants to provide Scots with status when the

marginalisation of certain codes of Scots language is also clearly still prevalent in

Scottish schools and Scotland at large. Female 2a elaborated on some of the issues

surrounding implementing Scots in schools without a canon of Scots:

if you’re marking any piece of work if you use the word ‘yin’ [one]

you can’t acknowledge that as being okay … that’s where there’s

conflict … [i]ts how we can teach it and how we can accept it in the

written form … how you recognise all the different variants and

dialects within that, and how you actually then standardise … that.

Scots online dictionaries6 and the Scots Language Centre

7 are some of the more

official bodies that have made steps to create a canon of Scots. Yet, as I discuss in my

conclusions below, although producing a canon of Scots is a critical step towards

supporting the teaching of Scots in schools, in doing so this creates its own problems

when teachers attempt to include Scots into the Scottish classroom.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of the research was to examine connections participants made between

the use of the Scots language and it ‘social’ and ‘cultural capital’ in the Scottish

classroom. How ‘capital’ is constructed and maintained through the use of the Scots

language was examined (see Bourdieu 1986: 241-58). The effects ‘othering’ the Scots

language had on its interlocutors, in particular children, and how this impacted on

issues of social justice in the classroom was also explored. From this I make

recommendations below for the implementation of Scots in the classroom, in order to

support educational policy and practice in Scotland.

Many participants were perplexed concerning what Scots actually is. They were

also ambivalent regarding the ‘capital’, the value, of Scots and were uncertain about

the place of Scots in Scottish schools. Female 2a stated that Scots is, ‘alive in the

playground’ but, ‘as soon as you then start to teach it suddenly becomes a totally

different story’ (Female 2a). However Scots was acknowledged as a fundamental

element of the history and culture of Scotland. A pilot study participant commented

that it: ‘is linked up with the country, the scenery, the courtesy, the culture’. Scots was

also considered as being intrinsic to national identity. One class teacher said: ‘Scots

6 See http://www.dsl.ac.uk/about-dsl/what-is-dsl/ and http://scots-online.org/dictionary/index.asp 7 See http://www.scotslanguage.com

18

language is important to your identity … it’s important to being Scottish’. Although

some participants supported the idea of Scots in the classroom, many continued to

‘other’ the language by, for example, regarding it as not ‘appropriate’ (female 3b).

We are reminded that the exclusion of Scots in Scottish schools, particularly the Scots

spoken in many working-class communities in Scotland, is linked historically with its

lack of ‘capital’ and particularly ‘cultural capital’ therein (see Bourdieu 1986: 241-

58).

As an aside, from observations during the study, it became apparent that Scots

conversely held covert prestige with pupils and became an indicator for ‘in-group’

status in child friendship groups. Many students unreservedly spoke everyday Scots

beyond audible distance of the teacher. Boy 5a said he spoke, ‘both scots and standard

english’ and Girl 9b stated, ‘[I] SPEAk ENGlish sometimes and scottish other times

but mostly english’ (verbatim). It was clear from the data that many participants

spoke both Scots and Scottish Standard English, knowing where and when to code-

switch between the two. A pilot study participant commented that: ‘[I] [u]sed my

native tongue when I was in the house’ and, ‘outside of school ... in the street’.

Further research into the use of Scots by schoolchildren in Scotland will be extremely

valuable in broadening our appreciation of the place of Scots in Scottish schools.

Scots was repeatedly considered by participants as ‘slang’ and not ‘polite’. Girl

4b’s answer to whether Scots should be used in school or not included: ‘because you

need to be polite in school so no’. A pilot participant also said: ‘[y]ou spoke polite

English. You didn’t speak like the way you spoke outside of school. You were told to

speak properly’. The influence of the eighteenth century elocution movement to

eradicate ‘Scotticisms’ in schools (see Jones 2005: 1-23) endured in the minds of

many participants. However, some participants paradoxically gave exclusive ‘capital’

to Traditional Literary Scots, despite this Scots being the precursor to the Scots

spoken today. This is only fathomable as Traditional Literary Scots holds ‘cultural

capital’ in Scottish schools, where it is considered as: ‘True Scots … a bit of Robbie

Burns’ (Female 2b).

Staff participants believed that they, ‘would have to re-educate ourselves partly’

(male 2a) and recognised a need for a canon of Scots for schools: ‘[i]ts how we can

teach it and how we can accept it in the written form … how you recognise all the

different variants and dialects within that, and how you actually then standardise …

that’ (female 2a). Participants in The National Survey of Teacher Attitudes (2010)

19

indicated that there was a requirement for professional development and learning in

Scots, with further Scots resources being welcomed. My own staff participants felt

that Scots, and it was apparent it was Traditional Literary Scots that many were

referring to, should be taught in schools, mostly due to its Scottish heritage and

cultural links. However they were worried about the influence Scots lessons might

have on ‘less able’ children: ‘perhaps only [teaching Scots] with those who are more

able to cope with a variety of languages’ (male 1a). Staff were worried too about the

‘capital’ of Scots, and it was evident they were instead signifying everyday Scots

here, and its impact on English language teaching in Scottish schools: ‘a lot of people,

sort of, in education are uncomfortable with giving the language that status’ (male

3a).

Again as an aside, many pupils were keen that they, rather than teachers, used

Scots in class: ‘I think students should be aloud to but I don’t know about teachers’

(Girl 8b) (verbatim). ‘Modern Scots’ acted as a marker of belonging to pupil ‘in-

groups’ (see Tajfel 1982: 1-39) and lower socio-economic groups within the study,

groups that by their very position in society are not normally furnished with the same

social status or ‘capital’ as teachers. Therefore, education policy makers and

educationalists are urged to think very carefully when continuing to prepare for and

when implementing Scots in schools, in order to avoid further entrenchment of covert

‘in-group’ Scots speakers in the Scottish classroom.

To conclude, one must be mindful that negative connotations associated with

the Scots language, cannot be easily overturned by educationalists expeditiously

asserting that Scots is now acceptable in today’s classrooms, particularly when the

only acceptable Scots often remains a ‘capitalised’ code of Traditional Literary Scots,

not the Scots of many of their students. If the approach of educational policy makers

and practitioners is not earnestly considered, the message to children will remain the

same, the working-class Scottish tongue does not have ‘capital’ and thus, does not

belong in Scottish schools; indeed, young Scots interlocutors will remain ‘othered’,

excluded and covert in their use of the vibrant language of Scots.

References

Aitken, A. J. 1979. ‘Scottish Speech: A Historical View’. In Aitken and McArthur

(1979): 85-118.

20

Aitken, A. J. and McArthur, T. (eds.) 1979. Languages of Scotland. Edinburgh:

Chambers.

Allan, A., C. Hunter-Rowe and B. Houliston. 2010. Deprivation in Dumfries and

Galloway: The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2009 V2. Dumfries:

Dumfries and Galloway, NHS.

Bailey, W.R. 1987. ‘Teaching in the Vernacular: Scotland, Schools, and Linguistic

Diversity’. In Macafee and Macleod (1987): 131-142.

Bourdieu, P. 1986. ‘The Forms of Capital’. In Richardson (1986): 241-58.

Council of Europe. 1991. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

Retrieved 24 March 2015, from

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/default_en.asp

Crossley, N. 2005. Key Concepts in Critical Social Theory. London: Sage.

Graneheim, U. H. and B. Lundman. 2004. ‘Qualitative content analysis in nursing

research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness’. Nurse

Education Today 24: 105–12.

Jenkins, R. 1992. Key Sociologists: Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.

Jones, C. 1995. A Language Suppressed: The Pronunciation of the Scots Language in

the 18th

Century. Edinburgh: John Donaldson.

Jones, C. (ed.) 1997. The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press.

Labov, William, 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City.

Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Macafee, C.I. 1994. Traditional Dialect in the Modern World: A Glasgow Case Study.

Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

– 1997. ‘Ongoing Change in Modern Scots’. In Jones (1997): 514-48.

– 2000. ‘The demography of Scots: The lesson of the census campaign’. Scottish

Language19: 1-44.

Macafee, C.I. and I. Macleod (eds.) 1987. The Nuttis Schell: essays on the Scots

language. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.

Macaulay, R. 1991. Locating Dialect in Discourse: The Language of Honest Men and

Bonny Lasses in Ayr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matheson, C. and D. Matheson. 2000. ‘Languages of Scotland: culture and

Classroom’. Comparative Education 36: 211-21.

McClure, J.D. 2009. Why Scots Matters. Edinburgh: Saltire Society.

21

Millar, R. McC. 2006. ‘“Burying Alive”: Unfocussed Governmental Language Policy

and Scots’. Language Policy 5: 63-86.

Moody, T. 2007. The Mid-Northumbrian Dialect. Morpeth: Northumbriana.

Scottish Government Cross Party Group on the Scots Language, Education Sub-

Committee. 2010. Report on National Survey of Teacher Attitudes to Scots

Language in Curriculum for Excellence. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

Ryan, G. and R. Bernard. 2003. ‘Techniques to Identitfying Themes.’ Field Methods

15: 85-109.

Sayer, A. 1997. ‘Essentialism, social constructionism and beyond’. The Sociological

Review 45: 453-87.

Shoba, J. 2010. ‘Scottish classroom voices: a case study of teaching and learning

Scots’. Language and Education 24: 385-400.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Tns-bmrb. 2010. Public Attitudes Towards the Scots Language, The Scottish

Government Social Research.

Trudgill, P. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Welsh, I. 2013. Trainspotting. London: Vintage.

Whitehead, C. 1995. ‘The medium of instruction in British colonial education: a case

of cultural imperialism or enlightened paternalism’. History of Education 24: 1–

15.

Williamson, K. 1982a. ‘Lowland Scots in education: an historical survey, part I’.

Scottish Language 1: 54-77.

– 1982b. ‘Lowland Scots in education: an historical survey, part II’. Scottish

Language 2: 52-87.

University of Durham